Faux News vs. the Communist News Network

Who do you trust?

Most people place varying layers of trust in others. That trust is based on a few things, but mostly it's based on how much we like them, and how trustworthy we think they've been in the past.

And that's screwed up, at least in part. I'll explain.

We tend to associate with people who share things with us. Our beliefs in religion and societial structure, our appearances, our likes and dislikes for entertainment. Because of that, if enough people in a group get something wrong, they'll not only believe it's correct, but that belief will be strengthened by the support of the others.

That's how we get ingrained bullshit. Talk to a bunch of White Supremacists, and they might explain to you how Hitler was slandered. They don't view this as incorrect, because all of their friends believe it too. What's worse, if you tell them they're wrong, they'll get upset with you because you're obviously trying to lie to them.... and they "know better".

The same thing holds for other groups. I spent some time last week talking to a person I have some respect for, who was telling me that this was one of the worst economies in US History. I told him that the numbers don't back it up, and his response was that he didn't care about the numbers, he cared about what he could see, and people he knew. Part of that is caused by an error in logic explained in an earlier post ( http://drinkingdeep.blogspot.com/2007/02/world-is-murfreesboro-tennessee.html ) but part of it is simply his trust of his associates. I asked him what information sources he believed, and he responded that the media could lie, and he'd learned that. So I asked him if he believed the government reports, and he told me that he didn't trust any of that stuff.

The end result is that he only trusts facts which support his position, and his friends agree with him, so he believes he's right. That's a hideous trap for a thinking person to fall into, discounting provable reality in favor of personal belief, and there's an easy way out of it: compare sources.

It all comes down to that. If you're discounting one group as "Faux News" and "The lying right-wingers", you may not be an idiot, but you are a gullible fool. If you're discounting the other group as "Communist News Network" and "The lying left-wingers", the same holds true. In point of fact, most news sources do not lie, because it's too easy for them to get called on it. Just harken back to the fake document scandal of Dan Rather if you can't remember. Instead, they color the news by reporting the parts they wish to push, and burying the parts they don't. It all comes down to training yourself to question what is NOT in a story that could be, and to learn the difference between opinion and fact.

Summing it up, a quote from a deceased world leader: Trust, but verify.

Survey says...!

A research study by a group of scientists proves that oat bran is good for you. Then another group proves that it's no better than any other type of bran.

Butter is bad for you, while margarine is good. Shortly afterward, margarine is worse than butter. Then both butter and margarine are bad, and you should use oil if possible. But only sunflower oil. Or non-hydrogenated fats.

A group puts out a study that shows a greater tendency toward mental retardation and brain injury in children who aren't quickly removed from the womb. Later studies demonstrate there is no evidence to support the initial claim.

These aren't unique; it happens often. There will be a study result trumpeted throughout the world, and actions will be taken as a result, such as banning saccharine or silicone breast implants, or forcing more women to undergo Caesarian section. Sometimes, such as with Thalidomide, the study results are accurate, and the resultant actions are a boon to society. Sometimes they're merely a way for people to gain money, prestige and power.

Here's the problem: nobody walks into a study with nothing to gain. If it's a corporation that's funding the study, they're hoping for results which will help the corporation. If it's the government that's funding the study, often through a university grant, the people conducting the study are getting free money from the government. They have a personal stake in producing results, because inconclusive results drastically reduce the likelihood of their getting money for future projects. Moreover, truly radical results could result in personal fame and wealth... just look at the famous "Hockey Stick" graph for global warming. The Hockey Stick has been demonstrated to be a complete fraud, but its creator is now famous and wealthy.

The end result is that all researchers have a material motive to lie, skew data, or misinterpret. Thankfully, peer review... that tendency for other scientists to look over published results... tends to reveal the frauds. But in the time between initial reporting and verification, a lot of crap gets a chance to become fixated in the public mind. There are still people who believe that it's safer to drive without your seat belt on, because of the risk of getting trapped in an accident. Or that compact cars are safer for their occupants in a collision than SUVs.

Then, to make matters worse, an interesting study will be reported by one media source, then another... and then media sources start using each other for the background on a story. 'Experts' crop up who are little more than charismatic celebrities who know less about science than the average person does about calculating road tar densities for expected degradation due to time, weather and usage stresses. Other 'experts' wind up being people who are gaining personally due to the proliferation of the topic; Oat Bran's version of community spokespeople.

Do yourself a favor. If you hear about a study and think it's interesting, fine, let it breeze by or tuck it away as interesting information. But if you're about to change your lifestyle due to a report, or five reports, or twenty, look into it yourself before you shift your habits. There are people out there who undoubtedly regret the extra surgery they underwent to remove their silicon breast implants (and no, I'm not even going to touch on why they wanted them in the first place), and people who regret losing their wives, daughters, or mothers due to complications from a Caesarian section which didn't really need to be done in the first place.
And when I say look into it, I mean just that: really take a good hard look into the sources, claims, and viability of the studies. A sampling of 6000 people is more impressive than a sampling of twenty-seven. Who paid for it? Who conducted it? Did they approach it from an angle which looks like they were trying to get a particular result?

And if it's too complicated, and much of it will be, try to find the people who are claiming the study is wrong, and listen to their explanations. As always, having all the information available to you before you decide is going to result in you making better decisions.